Strange

! Moderator Note It is not clear what you are asking or wish to discuss.

! Moderator Note Done

Not sure about the space station, but it can certainly be measured by satellites, for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_Field_and_Steady-State_Ocean_Circulation_Explorer

! Moderator Note This probably deserves a thread of its own. Let us know if it fits better in Mathematics, rather than Philosophy. That may be because such a set cannot exist (which is the of the paradox). Also, a set of abstract concepts (ie. sets) is pretty hard to visualise, anyway. The paradox probably works better when written in mathematical (set theoretical) notation. (I think there is an error in ydoaP's description, as well.)

I do hope the OP's absence is not related to (mis-)handling liquid nitrogen...

! Moderator Note If you want to discuss your idea, you will need to post in English. Do not start another thread like this.

! Moderator Note This is a discussion forum. Most of our members are English speakers as a first or second language. Very few know Turkish. If you want to discuss your idea, you will need to post in English.

Another timely article on octonions, and whether they have any physical significance: https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2019/12/14/ask-ethan-could-octonions-unlock-how-reality-really-works/#606b4b487c1e

! Moderator Note Some rather off-topic posts discussing President Obama have been split off to here: https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/120762-obama-split-from-impeachment-hearings/

1. Using electroencephalography (connected electrodes to the scalp): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electroencephalography 2. There is no single or unique frequency The brain generates multiple frequencies that can change depending on whether you are awake, asleep, dreaming, etc. 3. See answer 2. Meditation is also supposed to change this.

There is no such thing: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Scalar_wave

! Moderator Note If you wish to discuss this then you need to do it here, not by posting links.

I guess I have to take that as a compliment. No. (I guess that would be metaphysics, not quantum physics.) I think the first definition is rubbish as well. Quantum physics is really just the study of systems that are described by wave equations with quantised values. It only studies things that exist. And things at a quite a wide range of scales are quantised so it is not just about the "smallest of the small". But quantum theory does not seem to be relevant to anything you have discussed; we don't have a quantum theory of gravity. And so gravitational waves are not quantised.

It doesn't unify them. But it is another example of the well-known analogies between them.

It is pretty much static. But the Earth doesn't generate gravitational waves, as far as I know. (Although the Earth-Moon system will.) What is "am"?

That doesn't have anything to do with gravitational waves. Although gravitation generally interacts weakly with matter. Look at the enormous mass that needs to be under the ladder for them to be hurt by the fall. But if you want to quantify the interaction, you could look at this, for example: https://arxiv.org/abs/1110.0408 or https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02748651 The effect of gravitational waves is different from gravity. I'm not sure the frequency makes much difference. I'm guessing it would interact less because the matter is not likely able to move (compress and expand elastically) at those speeds. I think it is to do with the stress-energy tensor being second order (but at that point I no longer know what the words mean!) There has been some theoretical work on very high frequency gravitational waves, for example: https://arxiv.org/abs/1608.03186 I would assume that if the source of the waves have a very much smaller mass than the object you are considering, then the gravitational waves will also be relatively minute or even insignificant. Therefore you can approximate the effect as ... zero.

You can do a simple calculation based on the orbital speed (and hence time for one revolution) for a system of two masses, just using Newton's equations. This will not be completely accurate for two very large masses in close proximity (like two black holes about to merge, where you would need to use GR) but should be good enough to calculate the frequency and hence wavelength of the generated gravitational waves. (Note that the accurate result using GR cannot be calculated; you would need to simulate it.)

You are not dealing with the quantum level; you are talking about gravitational waves. A classical (non-quantum) phenomenon. And time is not subjective in quantum theory. Gravitational waves interact very weakly with matter, so they would pass through without being absorbed. But they would cause the space the matter is in (and hence the matter, I assume) to be stretched and compressed in directions orthogonal to the direction of travel of the gravitational waves. Exactly how depends on the polarization which, in turn, depneds on the nature of the source; some nice images here: http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/relativity/pictures.html

What wavelength of light are you talking about? The wavelength of the gravitational waves produced by two slowly orbiting black holes could be longer than the size of the system, perhaps (would have to check that) if that is what you mean.

You have a very odd definition of “same word”. “That” and “the” are spelt differently, have different meanings and are different grammatically. So obviously not the same word. If you have something to say then say it - don’t post cryptic references that mean nothing to anyone else. (And please stop filling the thread with irrelevant videos)

Good summary of which languages do and do not have articles of various types: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_(grammar)#Variation_among_languages

Maybe, but the language isn't!

Not really. English uses prepositions to indicate this, rather than case marking. (I suppose one could consider prepositions as case marking that is detached from the noun, but that is a bit of a stretch.) Well, similar. They are all Indo-European languages, so have some things in common. But they are not the same in the way that Bahasa-Malayu and Bahasu-Indonesia are (or US and British English).

Because: We are not rats. We are not living (and have probably never lived) under those artificial levels of stress. If those experiments were relevant, we would see a correlation between levels of cannibalism and homosexuality. I am farily sure that isn't the case. As there is no evidence that levels of homosexuality have increased, we must always have lived under that level of stress, which is obviously nonsense. That is not to deny that among the many factors that could affect someone's sexuality, stress could be one. But we would need to see evidence of that. Which is not what is being presented.

Those equations are correct; it is basically just Newton's laws of motion and gravitation. (We now know that the gravitation one is only an approximation, but a good one.) This is a really insightful passage. People often say that we don't know why inertial mass and gravitational mass are equal. Well, the answer is because we chose to give them units that make them equal!